My money is on DOMA getting invalidated and Prop 8 being declared a State issue and stays the same. I wouldn't be surprised if in the case of Prop 8 that they just don't declare it N/A and not vote on it under the basis it is a States issue

Personally I think that DOMA gets invalidated and that Proposition 8 gets struck down but the other state bans stay in place. The Court clearly knows how this is turning out to be and they don't want to be on the wrong side of history. But on the other hand, they don't want to botch it up as badly as they did with Roe v. Wade.

i still really don't think the backlash would be nearly anything like Roe V Wade.... Killing babies isn't the same "shock" or "outrage" as gay marriage... not only that, but anti-gay rights supporters arn't just the religious right anymore... and there's probably more people that support Same Sex marriage today than a Woman's Right to Choose.

I have a couple of friends who support gay rights, but don't support abortions. there's actually even gay men and women out there that don't necessarily support abortion. I think the Anti-Abortion "groups" are more diverse than the anti-gay, and lets face it.. the anti-gay are on a constantly dwindling spiral. Abortion? not so much... it will always be a hot topic.

Getting rid of almost 30 voter approved gay marriage bans really has the potential to create huge backlash. And I think that the backlash created by the Supreme Court's awful way to implement Roe v. Wade has made them extra cautious.

Getting rid of almost 30 voter approved gay marriage bans really has the potential to create huge backlash. And I think that the backlash created by the Supreme Court's awful way to implement Roe v. Wade has made them extra cautious.

There would only be a brief backlash. Young people won't care all that much.

__________________The poster formerly known as RachelDawes

Cynicism is not maturity, do not mistake the one for the other. If you truly cannot accept a story where someone does the right thing because it’s the right thing to do, that says far more about who you are than these characters. - Greg Rucka

There would only be a brief backlash. Young people won't care all that much.

Pretty much. And if the states took that vote today... I could guarantee majority of the votes would be vastly different. Not only that... But tough cookie there's absolutely no valid reason to gays not being allowed to wed. Especially with the separation if church and state.

Also many of the states that voted on the definition of marriage had pretty (and i assume purposely misleading and confusing questions to them. Most notoriously... Prop 8 where you voted "no" for saying "yes" to marriage equality.)

Pretty much. And if the states took that vote today... I could guarantee majority of the votes would be vastly different. Not only that... But tough cookie there's absolutely no valid reason to gays not being allowed to wed. Especially with the separation if church and state.

Also many of the states that voted on the definition of marriage had pretty (and i assume purposely misleading and confusing questions to them. Most notoriously... Prop 8 where you voted "no" for saying "yes" to marriage equality.)

Very well put, the U.S. has separation of Church and State, so who cares what people practice. If people hated on Christianity, and were trying to get outlawed Christianity they would yell separation of church and state, but when another set of beliefs try to say something, its looked down upon. So much hypocrisy.

There would only be a brief backlash. Young people won't care all that much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spideyboy_1111

Pretty much. And if the states took that vote today... I could guarantee majority of the votes would be vastly different. Not only that... But tough cookie there's absolutely no valid reason to gays not being allowed to wed. Especially with the separation if church and state.

Also many of the states that voted on the definition of marriage had pretty (and i assume purposely misleading and confusing questions to them. Most notoriously... Prop 8 where you voted "no" for saying "yes" to marriage equality.)

But why even risk the backlash when the momentum is clearly on the side of equality? Just simply doing away with Proposition 8 and DOMA while keeping the other bans intact is the best way of keeping the movement's momentum while avoiding potential backlash that can set it back? Why risk the potential of stupidity dominating the gay marriage debate the way it has dominated the abortion debate?

Gay marriage has the momentum right now to be legal throughout most of the United States. Why have the Supreme Court step in and mess around with what is coming around naturally and create hardcore bigotry that will last for generations when it's going to come to within this decade.

But why even risk the backlash when the momentum is clearly on the side of equality? Just simply doing away with Proposition 8 and DOMA while keeping the other bans intact is the best way of keeping the movement's momentum while avoiding potential backlash that can set it back? Why risk the potential of stupidity dominating the gay marriage debate the way it has dominated the abortion debate?

Gay marriage has the momentum right now to be legal throughout most of the United States. Why have the Supreme Court step in and mess around with what is coming around naturally and create hardcore bigotry that will last for generations when it's going to come to within this decade.

Because there's still too many states in the south that will never allow it. And the gay populous there needs a higher power to allow it to happen. And that won't happen until someone declares it nation wide

Id also rather not wait till Im 50 to get married in the state of my choice

Because there's still too many states in the south that will never allow it. And the gay populous there needs a higher power to allow it to happen. And that won't happen until someone declares it nation wide

Id also rather not wait till Im 50 to get married in the state of my choice

The Deep South will be the last to come around, but it will eventually happen. You need to allow society to see the light in their own way or else bigotry and intolerance will never fade away.

The Deep South will be the last to come around, but it will eventually happen. You need to allow society to see the light in their own way or else bigotry and intolerance will never fade away.

Well if Paula Dean is any indication... we might still have ole timey plantation soiree's with all black waiters. I think if the South could have individually voted on slavery laws, or African American Rights... we could quite possibly still have it.

Hell it took till this year for a school to STOP having a segregated prom, and finally join the 2 races together...

Considering that segregation was essentially blowback for what the North did to the South during the Civil War, segregation would have most likely would have never happened if slavery ended naturally. Before the Civil War, racism in the United States was more along the lines of ignorant White Man's Burden Archie Bunker styled racism. Pure ignorance but without the pure hatred of another race. After the Civil War after seeing their homes and cities get destroyed, lose all political power, and become economically devastated, the obvious result was that racism would turn into pure hatred onto the groups that benefited and bigoted attempts to reclaim what was once theirs.

Without the complete and utter devastation, there just wouldn't have been the hatred to create Jim Crow. People are stupid, but they aren't mustache twirling cartoon villains.

But why even risk the backlash when the momentum is clearly on the side of equality? Just simply doing away with Proposition 8 and DOMA while keeping the other bans intact is the best way of keeping the movement's momentum while avoiding potential backlash that can set it back? Why risk the potential of stupidity dominating the gay marriage debate the way it has dominated the abortion debate?

Gay marriage has the momentum right now to be legal throughout most of the United States. Why have the Supreme Court step in and mess around with what is coming around naturally and create hardcore bigotry that will last for generations when it's going to come to within this decade.

The major backlash would only occur in states that are already intensely homophobic and are probably decades away from legalizing gay marriage. There's no reason why homosexuals should have to wait that long.

The abortion similarity is a nonstarter because no one's getting killed when two people of the same sex get married. People tend to get really worked up when someone, especially a baby, appears to be getting unjustly murdered. Gay marriage...eh, they'll get over it. Even if they don't, it's not as though many young people are going to say, "I was morally in favor of the right of anyone of any sexual orientation to get married to anyone else they want, but since the Supreme Court ruled in favor of it I'm now totally opposed to it!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

Considering that segregation was essentially blowback for what the North did to the South during the Civil War, segregation would have most likely would have never happened if slavery ended naturally. Before the Civil War, racism in the United States was more along the lines of ignorant White Man's Burden Archie Bunker styled racism. Pure ignorance but without the pure hatred of another race. After the Civil War after seeing their homes and cities get destroyed, lose all political power, and become economically devastated, the obvious result was that racism would turn into pure hatred onto the groups that benefited and bigoted attempts to reclaim what was once theirs.

Without the complete and utter devastation, there just wouldn't have been the hatred to create Jim Crow. People are stupid, but they aren't mustache twirling cartoon villains.

Lol, I'm sure there are some white Southerners saying this. I suspect the real reason for the virulence of racism in the south was because black Americans made up such a large, and potentially threatening, minority. It's similar to how apartheid came into existence in South Africa.

__________________The poster formerly known as RachelDawes

Cynicism is not maturity, do not mistake the one for the other. If you truly cannot accept a story where someone does the right thing because it’s the right thing to do, that says far more about who you are than these characters. - Greg Rucka

The major backlash would only occur in states that are already intensely homophobic and are probably decades away from legalizing gay marriage. There's no reason why homosexuals should have to wait that long.

The abortion similarity is a nonstarter because no one's getting killed when two people of the same sex get married. People tend to get really worked up when someone, especially a baby, appears to be getting unjustly murdered. Gay marriage...eh, they'll get over it. Even if they don't, it's not as though many young people are going to say, "I was morally in favor of the right of anyone of any sexual orientation to get married to anyone else they want, but since the Supreme Court ruled in favor of it I'm now totally opposed to it!"

Lol, I'm sure there are some white Southerners saying this. I suspect the real reason for the virulence of racism in the south was because black Americans made up such a large, and potentially threatening, minority. It's similar to how apartheid came into existence in South Africa.

I can't see the Roberts Court following up a massive decision like today's with another massive decision. Invalidating DOMA really isn't a big deal (hell, government isn't even defending it), but invalidating Prop. 8 on a national level (i.e. saying that marriage is a Constitutionally protected right) would be ginormous. I don't think SCOTUS is going to do it. They're getting enough scrutiny today with the Voting Rights Act decision. My guess is that the Court sidesteps the issue on standing grounds or tailor a VERY narrow decision that is limited to California and only California.

The major backlash would only occur in states that are already intensely homophobic and are probably decades away from legalizing gay marriage. There's no reason why homosexuals should have to wait that long.

The abortion similarity is a nonstarter because no one's getting killed when two people of the same sex get married. People tend to get really worked up when someone, especially a baby, appears to be getting unjustly murdered. Gay marriage...eh, they'll get over it. Even if they don't, it's not as though many young people are going to say, "I was morally in favor of the right of anyone of any sexual orientation to get married to anyone else they want, but since the Supreme Court ruled in favor of it I'm now totally opposed to it!"

Lol, I'm sure there are some white Southerners saying this. I suspect the real reason for the virulence of racism in the south was because black Americans made up such a large, and potentially threatening, minority. It's similar to how apartheid came into existence in South Africa.

You'd be surprised. Most people didn't really care about abortion prior to Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Most states were passing laws to allow for abortion without the Court stepping in. Once the Court stepped in, you had nine, unelected officials legislating from the bench. It kinda lights a fire under the movement and gives them a lot of ammunition. Many of those involved with the Roe and Planned Parenthood decision (both clerks and Justices) have indicated that there was some regret in making the decision rather than just letting the situation resolve itself in the exact way that the Court chose to resolve it.

It is undeniable that the issue of gay marriage is resolving itself. Thus, the Court will likely allow history to progress naturally, if you will, rather than forcing it along. The Court learned its lesson with Roe, I think.

You'd be surprised. Most people didn't really care about abortion prior to Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Most states were passing laws to allow for abortion without the Court stepping in. Once the Court stepped in, you had nine, unelected officials legislating from the bench. It kinda lights a fire under the movement and gives them a lot of ammunition. Many of those involved with the Roe and Planned Parenthood decision (both clerks and Justices) have indicated that there was some regret in making the decision rather than just letting the situation resolve itself in the exact way that the Court chose to resolve it.

It is undeniable that the issue of gay marriage is resolving itself. Thus, the Court will likely allow history to progress naturally, if you will, rather than forcing it along. The Court learned its lesson with Roe, I think.

Again, killing unborn babies isn't even in the same ballpark as allowing homosexuals to marry one another. The former is likely always to be controversial and was probably always destined to be, SC ruling or not. If too many states had started passing pro-abortion laws more pro-life groups would've begun coming out of the woodwork.

Besides, the anti-gay marriage movement is already highly mobilized. It's not as though gay marriage is one of those issues no one's heard of and are uncertain where they stand on it.

__________________The poster formerly known as RachelDawes

Cynicism is not maturity, do not mistake the one for the other. If you truly cannot accept a story where someone does the right thing because it’s the right thing to do, that says far more about who you are than these characters. - Greg Rucka

Considering that segregation was essentially blowback for what the North did to the South during the Civil War, segregation would have most likely would have never happened if slavery ended naturally. Before the Civil War, racism in the United States was more along the lines of ignorant White Man's Burden Archie Bunker styled racism. Pure ignorance but without the pure hatred of another race. After the Civil War after seeing their homes and cities get destroyed, lose all political power, and become economically devastated, the obvious result was that racism would turn into pure hatred onto the groups that benefited and bigoted attempts to reclaim what was once theirs.

Without the complete and utter devastation, there just wouldn't have been the hatred to create Jim Crow. People are stupid, but they aren't mustache twirling cartoon villains.

HH you've said this before, and it's just not accurate. You do know that there were free blacks in the South before the Civil War, right? They were treated almost as badly as slaves. A lot of them were forced out in progroms (they were seen as a threat to the class system).

What purer form of hatred is there than what the Southerners did to the blacks before the Civil War? Pure, unapologetic exploitation. Any who resisted were beaten into submission, worked to death, or outright murdered. The vast majority of Southerners supported the institution, and viewed blacks as subhuman. They hated them before the war, and they hated them after.

Again, killing unborn babies isn't even in the same ballpark as allowing homosexuals to marry one another. The former is likely always to be controversial and was probably always destined to be, SC ruling or not. If too many states had started passing pro-abortion laws more pro-life groups would've begun coming out of the woodwork.

Besides, the anti-gay marriage movement is already highly mobilized. It's not as though gay marriage is one of those issues no one's heard of and are uncertain where they stand on it.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I am just telling you how many Constitutional scholars feel the Court (particularly Roberts and Kennedy, the swing votes) are likely to decide this issue. I tend to agree with these scholars. Kennedy's remarks when arguments were made, about not wanting the Court to make too many historic decisions, tends to support this view. But it is all moot. You are arguing the point, I am arguing how two old men will view the point. We're having different conversations, I fear.